I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Immigration: The shocking truth about the immigrants who openedthe floodgates
Next: The real cost of being sued by Getty
From: Testman on 1 Nov 2009 13:54 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:53:15 -0400, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > Shutter lag: Full autofocus shutter lag is good, at 0.50 second at > wide angle and 0.81 second at full telephoto. Unfortunately, all the P&S auto-focus speeds at dpreview's reviews are all in grievous error. Those that are testing the cameras don't know how to use contrast-detection focusing cameras properly. This always shows up as a proven fact just by the difference they have between wide-angle and telephoto auto-focus times. When contrast-detection focusing cameras are properly there is no difference between the auto-focus speed when using wide-angle or telephoto focal-lengths. The testers at dpreview can't even hold a camera steady. That's all it amounts to. When using telephoto focal-lengths the camera-shake is amplified. The more that the still subject is moving (or a moving subject that you can't learn to pan with), the longer it takes for contrast-detection focusing to latch onto the contrasting edges to obtain the right focus. This causes the consistently longer focusing times at longer focal-lengths on all of dprevews tests of P&S cameras. Operator error. Simple and incompetent operator error. Nothing more. Always revealed by their very own test results. You need to learn to analyze what you read and how they obtained those numbers. The numbers they obtained shows and proves operator error every time. Yet you just love to spew them like facts, don't you. Do yourself a favor, never cite any numbers from the internet again unless you yourself have personally tested them for credibility.
From: Testman on 1 Nov 2009 14:28 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:53:15 -0400, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > Shutter lag: Full autofocus shutter lag is good, at 0.50 second at > wide angle and 0.81 second at full telephoto. Unfortunately, all the P&S auto-focus speeds at dpreview's reviews are all in grievous error. Those that are testing the cameras don't know how to use contrast-detection focusing cameras properly. This always shows up as a proven fact just by the difference they have between wide-angle and telephoto auto-focus times. When contrast-detection focusing cameras are used properly there is no difference between the auto-focus speed when using wide-angle or telephoto focal-lengths. The testers at dpreview can't even hold a camera steady. That's all it amounts to. When using telephoto focal-lengths the camera-shake is amplified. The more that the still subject is moving (or a moving subject that you can't learn to pan with), the longer it takes for contrast-detection focusing to latch onto the contrasting edges to obtain the right focus. This causes the consistently longer focusing times at longer focal-lengths on all of dprevews tests of P&S cameras. Operator error. Simple and incompetent operator error. Nothing more. Always revealed by their very own test results. You need to learn to analyze what you read and how they obtained those numbers. The numbers they obtained shows and proves operator error every time. Yet you just love to spew them like facts, don't you. Do yourself a favor, never cite any numbers from the internet again unless you yourself have personally tested them for credibility.
From: Bob Larter on 1 Nov 2009 23:04 John Navas wrote: > On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:15:09 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> > wrote in <4aed1960$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: > >> John Navas wrote: > >>> The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a >>> comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here >>> previously. >> Really? I must have missed that post. Care to post the link again? > > "Google is your friend." In other words: "No, I can't." -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Navas on 2 Nov 2009 18:04 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:04:57 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in <4aee4c5b$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >John Navas wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:15:09 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >> wrote in <4aed1960$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >> >>> John Navas wrote: >> >>>> The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a >>>> comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here >>>> previously. >>> Really? I must have missed that post. Care to post the link again? >> >> "Google is your friend." > >In other words: "No, I can't." In other words, "No I can't be baited with silly, childish taunts." You obviously have no real interest. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: nospam on 2 Nov 2009 17:08
In article <dapue5ls83nh73apv9km3lnue8ch7hv9od(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>>> The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a > >>>> comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here > >>>> previously. > >>> Really? I must have missed that post. Care to post the link again? > >> > >> "Google is your friend." > > > >In other words: "No, I can't." > > In other words, "No I can't be baited with silly, childish taunts." > You obviously have no real interest. you made the claim. back it up. it shouldn't take more than a minute (if that long) to locate it and post the link. |